arbitova_confirm_delivery

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses consequence of wrong confirmation (funds auto-escalate to arbitration) and that silence is safer. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or reversibility, but sufficient for safety-critical action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is longer than average but each sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisites, alternatives, consequences. Front-loaded with main action. Could condense the list of prerequisites slightly, but no wordiness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (high-stakes confirmation with verification criteria), the description thoroughly covers preconditions, alternatives, and consequences of misuse. No output schema, but return value is not critical for decision-making.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter (escrowId) with schema description. Description adds context (confirms delivery for that escrow) but does not materially extend beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('delivery') with clear condition (output meets verificationURI criteria). Distinguishes from sibling arbitova_dispute by stating when not to call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists 4 prerequisites before calling, provides clear when-not-to-use (any missing/wrong), and names alternative tool (arbitova_dispute). Also advises on escalation path if uncertain.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.